[Elmer G. White]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

...the usual explanation isn't it? God could not come up with words that would be accurate enough to explain things for the layman, so He had to resort to approximations and simplifications. Calvin is defending God's "error" and at the moment admitting that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is less than perfect....
Thus, the path to probabilistic interpretation opens.

...The differences held by Paedo Baptism and Credo Baptism is highly controversial... we should question through the Scriptures and teach from where this practice comes. If we view Paedo Baptism through the lens of Covenant Theology it has a very strong argument in Scripture. Paedo Baptist argue that the children of the OT covenant are to bear the sign of circumcision of the new convert. Therefore, they argue since the NT Covenant sign is water, they are too to be baptized. How long much children suffer? Have they lost their place in the transition from the OT to NT covenants Acts 16:31. And if we take Credo Baptism or confessional baptism we have a very strong argument from Scripture...

I'm sorry I shortened our previous discussion. I can see that you are quite verbose. So am I and this can be tiresome for everyone else. I'm going to mend my ways any day now, any moment, quite soon...

I concentrate on baptism once more. I think the issue is not as complicated as the theologians on both sides argue. And I'm going to refer to the founding Father of your denomination, Calvin, based on my post above.

1. While I don't vouch for his tendency of patronizing the Bible, I cherish his idea of God's Word being clear and Pure enough to be understood by the average adult man of any age. It must be approachable to the layman. What the baptism discussion is all about is finding loopholes for infant baptism. And if you study hard enough, you do find them. The logic you presented is a good example. By cross-references and searching for parallelisms you get a result that shows that possible infant baptism could be based on Scripture, if we take into account many other issues with probabilistic interpretations. By this time we've taken a leap away from the common man and the principle of God's Word being accessible to them. If Calvinism wishes to present a unified doctrine, this basis of it (approachability) should not be discarded to gain a probabilistic victory in infant baptism.

2. The defense of infant baptism is a good example of confirmation bias. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusions are flawed. It only means that the hypothesis can be skewed because of biases. These biases are usually unintended and hard to recognize - they are basic psychology. Please let me elaborate. Human beings tend to concentrate on hypotheses, information and conclusions that support their preconceptions. Other information tends to be dismissed or belittled. I think that we can see this phenomenon at work here. The denominations with infant baptism have allocated enormous resources to it. It is the principal form of maintaining a decent base of disciples. You are baptized before you become sentient and the effort of leaving the denomination as an adult is - well - too bothersome.

The Biblical study on infant baptism is conducted with the question "How can we support infant baptism Biblically?". A nice question but a biased one. The unbiased question would be "What does the Bible teach us about baptism, how should it be done and who should receive it?". Using this tabula rasa the scholars could arrive to the conclusions via a much simpler path. I do not generally endorse the use of secular philosophy but in this case (confirmation bias) the Theory of Justice by Rawls offers us a practical tool to use: the Veil of Ignorance. With it you can pose study questions that are not intended to affirm the practice, the tradition but to actually study the Bible de novo. Asking questions by not knowing in advance how you wish to be answered.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Veil of Ignorance. Tabula rasa. No previous knowledge on baptism. No tradition that dictates infants have always been baptized in our Church, the parents like it and we will lose members if we discontinue it. Tabula rasa. Who are being baptized? Repenting adults who understand the procedure.

4. back to Calvin and the layman. I am also not too keen on bringing historical studies into Bible study. There is, however, one thing I cannot ignore. Literacy vs. illiteracy and the Bible. The scholarly discussion you summarized is based on the unspoken premiss that Bible is principally a text and that all the (later added) commas and section breaks (added later) matter. No. The Bible is the SPOKEN Word of God that has been written down as He dictated. It was written down during Biblical times when the average literacy was <1%. It was read aloud for the congregation. It was to be understood without the elaborate referencing. The cross references you need are already there. Jesus' virgin birth in Isaiah, etc. You should be very careful when defending e.g. infant baptism with parallelism that are not readily understood by reading the Bible aloud. I think that the text itself also reveals this nature of the layman. Take revelations 1:4, for instance. It's been the target of lots of well-meaning but destructive patronizing and corrections because in "good Greek" the preposition "apo" should have the genitive (and God gives us nominative)*. God gives us layman language and not the scholarly posh. Keep that in mind!

That was my account on baptism. Still hoping you'll give us some ideas on your views about Good and Evil and how to explain the obvious "atrocities" of the OT to the congregation.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

*TR gives us ιωαννης ταις επτα εκκλησιαις ταις εν τη ασια χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο του ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος και απο των επτα πνευματων α εστιν ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου. The Byzantine version is ιωαννης ταις επτα εκκλησιαις ταις εν τη ασια χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο θεου (they place the genitive here to "correct God") ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος και απο των επτα πνευματων α [εστιν] ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου.

[WWJDnow]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

If a child is baptized and brought up into the ways of the Lord, and later professes his faith, does it make the baptism any less?

You're putting way too much thought into something simple. Jesus didn't say that infant baptism was invalid. He didn't say that it was valid. He didn't say what happens to those who find faith in Him but were never properly Baptised. He did say that if you believe and you are baptized, you will be saved. We KNOW that that works. So everyone who accepts Christ should get baptized ASAP, just in case.

People can spend another 2,000 years arguing about how to get baptized (well, probably not 2,000, with the Rapture coming soon) or they can just follow us True Christians™ and ensure their place next to Jesus. If someone accepts Christ as his Savior, has all of his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus, lives a good Christian life, and still winds up in Hell on a technicality, it's HIS OWN DAMNED FAULT.

[Calvinist]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

Still hoping you'll give us some ideas on your views about Good and Evil and how to explain the obvious "atrocities" of the OT to the congregation.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

A great defense of Credo Baptism! I think, you as well as I have witnessed the ping pong effect between Paedo and Credo Baptist. I'm not ready to engage in such debate on this night, and I appreciate your comment about boring the bageebers out of others.

I don't know what you mean by my views of Good and Evil. It is quite simple, and this will probably end up answering to the charge that there were atrocities of the OT.

You brought up secular thought, and I'm going to reject it also and say, there are no atrocities committed by God. The accusation assumes that morality is defined by someone or a group or society ect other than God. God is the standard bearer of Goodness. If someone has a problem with the way Goodness is given through the actions to the Glory or "sum" of all God's attributes, than they'll have an opportunity one day to present it.

I can hear in the back of my mind those asking why is there evil and suffering then? And I would like them to actually ask the question the right way by acknowledging the present condition held by fallen man. Why hasn't God killed us all in our sleep last night? Don't we all deserve His Just Wrath? Secular thought assumes that God owes anyone anything. Why would unbelievers want to go to heaven? A person cannot see, let alone enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being Regenerated. What is the Kingdom of Heaven in which they speak?

Lastly, Grace is unmerited favor, and this is also touching upon witnessing some people resist Grace. I am not quoting per verbatim, as I'm pressed for time. Common grace, God makes the rain come down on the unjust and just alike - Matthew 5:45. This should also address the unbelievers question. However, the TULIP is referring to the irresistible grace or efficacious grace, where God's grace is effectual to those who he has determined to save - John 6:65.

That's all I'll write in order to be brief.

As much as I have enjoyed this conversation with you, and in hopes of us both Glorifying God, I must call it too for at least a few days.

God bless! and G'nite!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

...You brought up secular thought, and I'm going to reject it also and say, there are no atrocities committed by God. The accusation assumes that morality is defined by someone or a group or society ect other than God. God is the standard bearer of Goodness. If someone has a problem with the way Goodness is given through the actions to the Glory or "sum" of all God's attributes, than they'll have an opportunity one day to present it.

I approach this in a slightly different manner. God is beyond human good or evil. The definition of good is the problem. However, your (not necessarily shared by you) defense of infant baptism included the "emotion" of the new Covenant not being "fair" to children that are not yet sentient, capable of repentance. It is the same thing, isn't it? The defenders are questioning good and evil and decide based on their preconceptions that leaving children outside Salvation would be evil. Thus, it must not be so and we have to find a way to prove this Biblically, no matter the confirmation bias.

Definition of Good:
Good is what God orders and does.
We don't have to understand it or like it.
We are here to accept it as Good.

What a tough lesson to learn. I summarize it with these verses:

Exodus 3:13-15
And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations.


First time I realized what this was all about I literally wet my pants. God is what He is. If He destroys a nation including the women and children, it is GOOD. If he rejects children until mature enough to be baptized, it is GOOD. Don't negotiate! In my opinion those scholars we discussed are negotiating based on their likes and dislikes.




Yours in Christ,


Elmer

[Calvinist]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

I approach this in a slightly different manner. God is beyond human good or evil. The definition of good is the problem. However, your (not necessarily shared by you) defense of infant baptism included the "emotion" of the new Covenant not being "fair" to children that are not yet sentient, capable of repentance. It is the same thing, isn't it? The defenders are questioning good and evil and decide based on their preconceptions that leaving children outside Salvation would be evil. Thus, it must not be so and we have to find a way to prove this Biblically, no matter the confirmation bias.

Yours in Christ,


Elmer

I see your points, and would also caution as the same argument for the not yet sentient, capable of repentance could lead to abortion debates or the line of thinking. I could just as easy use defensive arguments based on Scripture against abortion to respond to these, as far as leaving every child outside of Salvation would be evil, in my view all children and adults are deserving of the Just Wrath of Hell, and are going to hell if it weren't for election. I think most are going to back themselves into a corner and end up redefining Grace if they attempt to merit it towards a particular group or a peoples. As Ephesians 2:8 says, the Elect have nothing to boast in of themselves.

First time I realized what this was all about I literally wet my pants. God is what He is. If He destroys a nation including the women and children, it is GOOD. If he rejects children until mature enough to be baptized, it is GOOD. Don't negotiate! In my opinion those scholars we discussed are negotiating based on their likes and dislikes.

Amen. While I don't necessarily feel compelled to defend the scholars discussed, I appreciate them. And say, the will of God will be done, regardless if it is revealed to an individual, group, or nation ect. If anything, it sometimes causes paralysis, over thinking and non action. But as you suggested, even this could be the reason. I try to avoid fatalism (if all is God's will, why try thinking), which is inherently Hyper-Calvinism. As far as Calvinism being the "father" of my denomination, he is. But then again, his works can be seen in our gov't through the presby. style of check and balance system.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

Consider Isaiah 64:6. There's nothing natural man can do. This is further reiterated Romans 3:10-11.

I think Ephesians 2 also gets the point across nicely. The unbeliever is dead in sin. Sharing the Gospel with someone is not like throwing a life preserver to someone who's about to go under; it's like throwing a life preserver to someone who's already at the bottom of the sea. There is nothing a dead person can do to save themselves.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[. . .]
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

The differences held by Paedo Baptism and Credo Baptism is highly controversial.

I used to be a Presbyterian before I joined the Baptists, so I was also a staunch pedobaptist. But allow me to share with you why I changed my mind on the subject. I was brought up to believe that baptism replaced circumcision. Just as God's Old Covenant people, the Israelites, circumcised their children, so God's New Covenant people, the church, should baptize their children.

The passage erroneously used to support this assertion is from Colossians.

Col 2:10-13
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses . . .

But it doesn't actually say, "Baptism replaces circumcision." It does say, however, that baptism symbolises our burial and resurrection with Christ, which is the Baptist position.

Peter's words at Pentecost are used to bolster the pedobaptist position, but it actually supports the credobaptist position.

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The promise only applies to children when they're old enough to repent, for they must repent before they can be baptized. Now there are some passages in the New Testament where entire households were baptized.

Acts 10:24b And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
[. . .]
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

1 Cor 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

But we can be assured there were no infants among them; otherwise these verses would contradict the passages supporting credobaptism which Brother Elmer quoted earlier. If God wanted us to baptize babies, don't you think He would have just come out and said so plainly in His Word? It is an important issue. If the pedobaptists are right and baptism replaces circumcision, then unbaptized children in Baptist households are guilty breaking covenant with God.

Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.

If the credobaptists are right -- and we are -- then those baptised as infants need to get baptized properly or risk damnation.

Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[Faith_Machine]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

Wait a minute, pedo-baptism?

I don't think I like the sound of that. No sir, I don't.

[Calvinist]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

Peter's words at Pentecost are used to bolster the pedobaptist position, but it actually supports the credobaptist position.

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The promise only applies to children when they're old enough to repent, for they must repent before they can be baptized. Now there are some passages in the New Testament where entire households were baptized.

I enjoy these theological discussions in this forum. It has been mentioned to me, even in this thread about the behavior of others that come into your forum and attack Christians with their own personal belief - whatever that means. I have found nothing but insightful dialogue, with respect to CONTEXT by members here. Just wanted to say this as a compliment.

The arguments presented Pim, are widely known and were the main ones that began to lean me Credo-Baptism, I couldn't find a solid argument for the other side of Believer's baptism for those who were baptized as infants and never made a profession of faith as adults when they were to admitted into the church. While I do not believe Baptism is essential for salvation, I do believe it is essential for an outward sign of obedience. Galatians 3:27, for someone who was baptized as an infant and never professed their faith, they really are misrepresenting the nature of Baptism.

Paedo-Baptism only makes sense to me when parallels are drawn between the OT Covenant and the NT Covenant. It becomes whether at that point, the doctrine and practice conveys the concepts and truths of Scripture, regardless of being an explicit practice. Those who argue against Paedo-Baptism on such points sometimes lose their ground when the Paedo-Baptist point out that because something is explicit like the Trinity, which is never found in Scripture - but the doctrine conveys the concepts and truths of the Bible. I personally don't like to argue that point, but admit to having done that in order to understand whether the person making his case actually could point out the Scriptures that conveyed the concepts and truths - Sola Scriptura. My tactic wasn't to act as though they owed me personally a convinced statement of faith, but it was nothing more than to sharpen the edge of a sword.

Lastly, Acts 2:38-39, with emphasis on Acts 2:28, Peter having said Repent and be Baptized. In respect to context, I ask to who was Peter addressing this? I'm cautious, because I do adhere to Sola Fide. So when someone begins adding to faith, as Faith ++++++++++ and not pointing to Christ Crucified I begin analytical mode.

Jesus said, in Mark 10:17-27, with Emphasis on 10:19-22, to a rich young ruler that this was directed to, that he was to follow the Law and also sell all his goods and then Jesus. Jesus' answered an important question in 10:27. My point that I am asking, and differentiating between as a Covenant of Works. I read these Scriptures and also those of Peter with respect to the audience, as Jesus had destroyed in these verses the Spiritual pride the Jews had in the Law.

Now, I am not saying that Christian should not try to follow the Law, and DO what beloved Christ asked of us. But I am saying as Christ said, concerning Salvation, with man these things are impossible, but with God. I hear arguments, that go the other way too, and beleive that a person that has been Regenerated does have a heart that is both receptive and obedient to the word of God. As advocates of the liberal bent, I have come into contact with, suggested it is not even necessary to baptized. That makes me seriously question whether regeneration has even taken place, and therefore the bad doctrine that flows from their lips. I then wonder if they even understand the nature of baptism, which demonstrates an inward spiritual truth. Obviously they profess the words of the lord and testify to receiving it, but do they when they demonstrate disobedience? Anyways, I'm not going to make a case for bad doctrine.

Last question, Pim, or anyone... do you think that there is in general, an age of accountability? Or is this a case by case basis? And also, I'm just curious, if whether you ever ran into anyone making the case for paedo-baptism and they point to John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb? I "think" if I am not wrong, that Roman Catholics as well as some Protestants use this in defense of Paedo Baptism. I must admit I have used this towards someone that was defending a Covenant of Works and had also promoted Credo-Baptism in light of the C. of Works. I was waiting for them to make the charge on a superficial level as a guilt by association that because Roman Catholics believe it, it must be wrong. Of course many will have a hard time with that considering the Nicene Creed is widely held, and usually differentiates between the cohesion that makes denominations a denomination of Christianity - again pointing to the concepts and truths.

God bless.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The Bible is NOT 98.3% accurate!

Last question, Pim, or anyone... do you think that there is in general, an age of accountability?

No. An age of accountability is never mentioned in the Bible. Children are accountable for their own sin, and their parents', from the womb.

2 Sam 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
2 Sam 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
[. . .]
2 Sam 12:18a And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.